Using probiotic supplementation to support bone health in postmenopausal women: a randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled, multi-center study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies using rodent models have demonstrated the ability for probiotics to attenuate estrogen-related bone loss, but findings in humans are limited. Postmenopausal women consuming a novel combination of bacteria strains as a probiotic supplement demonstrated no changes in bone health outcomes. PURPOSE: This study determined if a probiotic supplement could attenuate the loss of femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) and assessed its effect on fracture risk and markers of bone cell activity. METHODS: Seventy-two postmenopausal women (40-59 years) were randomized to a daily probiotic supplement or placebo for 48 weeks. Femoral neck BMD was assessed at weeks 0 and 48 using DXA along with fracture risk using the FRAX® assessment tool. Serum procollagen type 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP), bone-specific alkaline phosphatase (BALP), cross-linked C-telopeptide of type I collagen (CTx), and osteocalcin (OC) were analyzed at weeks 0, 12, 24, and 48. RESULTS: There was no significant time by treatment interaction (p > 0.05) for femoral neck BMD or fracture risk. Independent of treatment, femoral neck BMD decreased (p = 0.034), while risk of hip (p = 0.003) and major osteoporotic fracture (p = 0.044) increased. There was no mean difference in bone marker levels between groups from baseline to endpoint. These findings align with the lack of difference in BMD and fracture risk at the end of study. CONCLUSION: Probiotics did not alter BMD or fracture risk, as supported by bone cellular activity that was similar to the placebo group by the end of study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".